High Speed Rail - Center for Neighborhood Technology

More documents

Recommendations

Info

High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CCAP & CNT Appendix B California Corridor The California High Speed Rail Authority “Ridership and Revenue Forecasts” authored by Charles Rivers and Associates in 2000 predicts a HSR ridership of 32 million passenger trips in 2020 for trips longer than 150 miles. The forecasters performed a sensitivity analysis on their model, however, that shows a maximum annual ridership of 58,397,253 trips in 2020 based on increased growth in air and auto travel, increased travel times for air and auto travel (likely due to congestion), and a 150% increase in air fares. In addition, they estimate 10 million long distance commuters traveling less than 150 miles. The Environmental Impact Report uses the higher value in its energy analysis, but we chose the more conservative and well-documented value of 32 million intercity riders plus 10 million commuters (42 million total annual riders) that is used elsewhere in the Environmental Impact Report. California passenger diversion rates are from the California High Speed Rail Ridership and Revenue Study. 41 We used the average high speed rail trip length from the FRA High Speed Rail Study, “New HSR Option” scenario, because the local ridership study only looked at trips over 150 miles. Average air trip length was calculated from the OAG database. 42 Empire Corridor We used data from the FRA High Speed Rail study for the Empire Corridor. Ridership figures are from the “Accelerail 125F: Extension” scenario. That scenario did not provide diversion rates, so we used diversion rates from the “New HSR: Empire/Northeast System” scenario. The Empire Corridor is already running trains at maximum speeds of 100 mph. Fiscal year 2004 Amtrak ridership in this corridor was 1,093,965 according to Amtrak’s September 2004 monthly report. 43 Florida The future of high speed rail in Florida in uncertain. In 2000, voters passed a constitutional amendment mandating construction on a high speed rail system, but in another ballot initiative in 2004 voters repealed the amendment, essentially halting high speed rail development in Florida. The Florida High Speed Rail Authority is wrapping up its planning work in the hopes that the project will be picked up again in the future. 44 Based on this possibility, we have included this system in our study. We used 2025 ridership projections for the Beeline Alignment—indicated as the currently favored alignment— which were prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. 45 While the Florida ridership study considered passenger diversion from various modes, it did not provide passenger diversion rates in a format consistent with other corridors, so we used the values from the FRA High Speed Rail study. 41 California High Speed Rail Authority. “Independent Ridership and Passenger Projections for High Speed Rail Alternatives in California.” Prepared by Charles River and Associates Incorporated. January 2000 http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/plan/pdf/Ridership_Revenue.pdf 42 OAG Worldwide, Inc. “Official Airline Guide’s Market Analysis for Air Transport Specialists.” April 2002 http://oagdata.com/home.aspx 43 Amtrak. “Monthly Performance Report for September 2004.” November 1, 2004. http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0409monthly.pdf 44 Florida High Speed Rail Authority. “Overview.” accessed May 2005. http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/1_overview.jsp 45 Florida High Speed Rail Authority. “Investment Grade Ridership Study: Summary Report.” November 2002. http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/uploaddocuments/p25/Ridership%20Study%20-%20all%20reports.pdf B-7
High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas Emissions – CCAP & CNT Appendix B Gulf Coast Corridor Southern Rapid Rail Transit Commission is the lead organization in the Gulf Coast Corridor. We used their passenger projections for the buildout scenario at 12 trains per day and 110 mph maximum speed. 46 The study did not provide passenger diversion rates, and the FRA High Speed Rail study did not include this corridor, so we used the diversion rates from the FRA study’s scenario for Florida based on an assumption that the intercity travel profile of the two adjacent corridors would be similar. Keystone Corridor Based on a conversation with Toby Fauber at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, we used an annual passenger trip value of 1.1 million. Mr. Fauber said the current ridership in the corridor is 700,000- 800,000. Midwest The federally designated corridor called the “Chicago Hub Corridor” is being planned by two separate local initiatives, the Ohio segment (also called the 3C corridor because it would connect Cincinnati, Columbus, and Cleveland) and the Midwest corridor. These two corridors are planned to be linked at both Cleveland and Cincinnati, but at the recommendation of the planners we modeled them separately. Moreover, we used the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative’s definition of their corridor, which is slightly different than the federal definition; for example, it includes a segment to Omaha that is not in the federal map. Based on discussions with Rick Harnesh at the Midwest High Speed Rail Association and Randy Wade and Ethan Johnson at the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, we used passenger projections and diversion rates developed by Transportation Economics and Management Systems, Inc. for the Midwest Regional Rail System. 47 Northeast Corridor Despite the large amount written about Acela and high speed rail in the Northeast Corridor, we had a hard time finding passenger projections for this corridor. We used projections and diversion rates from the FRA High Speed Rail study, which projects 24.8 million riders in 2020. According to Amtrak, fiscal year 2004 Acela Express ridership was 2.6 million, while ridership in the Northeast Corridor as a whole, including Acela, Metroliner, Regional, and Clocker ridership was 11.3 million. 48 Northern New England Corridor We used passenger ridership data from the Boston-Montreal High Speed Rail planning and feasibility study prepared by the consulting firm Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas. 49 The study writeup did not provide the diversion rates that went into the ridership model, but it did provide a breakdown of current intercity travel volume by mode. Lacking better data, we used this as a substitute for the diversion rates, although it is likely to over count auto diversions and undercount air travel diversions. In addition, we estimated flight frequencies and 46 Southern Rapid Rail Transit Commission. “Gulf Coast High Speed Rail Corridor, Feasibility Study Phase II Draft Report.” Prepared by Morrison Knudsen Corporation with Fredric R. Harris, Inc. and Salzan and Associates, Inc. No date given. http://www.srrtc.org/PDFs/GulfCoastHighSpeedRail.pdf 47 Midwest Regional Rail Initiative. “MWRRI Project Notebook.” Prepared by Transportation Economic and Management Systems, Inc. June 2004. In possession of author. 48 Amtrak. “Monthly Performance Report for September 2004.” November 1, 2004. http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0409monthly.pdf 49 Vermont Agency of Transportation, et. al. “Boston to Montreal High-Speed Rail Planning and Feasibility Study, Phase I, Final Report.” Prepared by Parsons Brinkerhoff Quade and Douglas, et. al. April 2003. http://www.bostonmontrealhsr.org/documents/Final_Repor_%20Boston-Montreal_HSR-Phase1.pdf B-8
Page 1 and 2: Center for Clean Air Policy Center
Page 3 and 4: High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas
Page 31: High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas
Page 39: High Speed Rail and Greenhouse Gas

High Speed Rail - Center for Neighborhood Technology

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?